Re: Fw: Ohio Votes 13-5 to Adopt Lesson Plan Critical ofEvolution

Ted, this is one of the best posts I have seen on this list.

Perhaps Denyse and others should now see why so many of us bridle at the
type of propaganda pushed out from ID and YEC circles.

I am sure Ted like me would like to push the argument back into the past and
that this has been argued not only from the foundation of ASA and CIS (then
as something else) in the 1940s but going right back to the days of John Ray
and Robert Boyle in the 17 th century and before.

Michael

P.S. there is a good article by Arthur Peacocke on Hawking and ToE in the
Church Times. It may be on their website. I hope hope no one objects to the
fact that Arthur is very much a liberal (he berates my conservatism to my
face in a very good humoured way) If you can download the article and show
it to your friends.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <oleary@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Ohio Votes 13-5 to Adopt Lesson Plan Critical ofEvolution

> >>> Denyse O'Leary <oleary@sympatico.ca> 03/10/04 12:07PM >>> writes:
>
> In my opinion, Christian evolutionists ought to
> have been sponsoring the critical thinking
> exercises, not just going along with everything
> that the atheistic Darwinists say.
>
> For example, here is what atheist/agnostic
> philosopher Michael Ruse has said in his review
> of Dawkins's A Devil's Chaplain:
>
> "I worry about the political consequences of
> Dawkins's message. If Darwinism is a major
> contributor to nonbelief, then should Darwinism
> be taught in publicly funded U.S. schools?"
>
> (From "Through a glass, darkly," a review of A
> Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies,
> Science, and Love (New York: Houghton Mifflin,
> 2003), American Scientist (November-December,
> 2003),
> www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/28365.)
>
>
> Pardon me, but if you didn't react to the same
> situation that Ruse has, why am I supposed to
> take you seriously? You claim to be Christians
> -- and I don't doubt it -- but I am amazed that
> this doesn't concern you as much as concerns
> even him.
>
> He also says,
>
> Evolution after Darwin had set itself up to be
> something more than science. It was a popular
> science, the science of the marketplace and the
> museum, and it was a religion--whether this be
> purely secular or blended in with a form of
> liberal Christianity . . . When believers in
> other religions turned around and scratched, you
> may regret the action but you can understand
> it--and your sympathy for the victim is
> attenuated. (Michael Ruse, The Evolution Wars
> (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2000), p. 114.)
>
> Instead of blaming Discovery Institute for
> rushing into the vacuum, ask yourselves why YOU
> didn't think of doing so.
>
> Ted replies:
>
> Well, Denyse, we have responded to this. One of the main themes of the
> ASA, consistently pursued for decades, has been exactly this theme.
ASAers
> have *not* typically tried to combine what Ruse calls "a form of liberal
> Christianity" with evolution. Rather, many of us have sought to advance
> *orthodox* Christian theism and modern science together. Now, people like
> Phil think we can't do this in practice, without abandoning either genuine
> "Darwinism" as he defines it or orthodox Christianity as he understands
it.
> And many people agree with Phil about this. But the ASA can't fairly be
> accused of doing what Ruse is talking about.
>
> In fact, the type of "science masquerading as religion," what philospher
> Jerome Ravetz has called "folk science," has been the target of plenty of
> ASA rhetoric. A lovely example would be Howard Van Till's early book,
> "Science Held Hostage," which I recommend to all on this list. Howard's
> beliefs concerning Christianity have changed substantially in recent
years,
> as Howard has told us, but this early book does all kinds of things I
would
> fully agree with--the kinds of things that Denyse is saying we haven't
> done.
>
> How long a list could I make, of ASA authors who have done similar things?
> Richard Bube (former editor of PSCF), Dave Young, and the more than one
> dozen ASAers who contributed to Keith Miller's book, Perspectives on an
> Evolving Creation would be among them. The fact that we are much less
> highly visible than ID authors, the fact that TDI is much more visible
than
> the ASA, is probably a function of three things. (1) TDI has bucketloads
of
> money, they spend annually what the ASA has spent in more than a decade;
(2)
> their position is more popular with ordinary (i.e., non-scientifically
> trained) Christians, b/c ordinary Christians don't understand science very
> well and don't know that lots of seriously Christian scientists think
> evolution is true; and (3) they judiciously avoid trying to tackle the
hard
> theological questions that automatically come with engaging issues as
ASAers
> typically do, which means they don't alienate some ordinary Christians who
> haven't thought very deeply about these things.
>
> There is nothing (please read that word again) new in Ruse's position. He
> didn't used to say these kinds of things, when many of us were saying
them.
> In recent years, however, he's been converted (probably by dialogue with
> lots of people who know more about rel/sci than he did) to seeing this
> point. Now that someone of Ruse's stature is saying what we've been
saying
> for a long time, however, more people are paying attention. And, it's a
> heck of a lot easier for Ruse to get published by leading firms, than for
> many of us to get published--his stature as a top secular philosopher
> automatically opens more doors. But, we were there long before him.
>
> Now I agree that the kinds of things he's saying have not been hot topics
> on this list, but this list is not a very good representation of what ASA
> people actually think. It represents just a few ASAers, plus many other
> people; and it doesn't often represent the kind of careful thinking that
> goes into writing a good book or essay for a good book. The internet has
> not helped the ASA much, as yet, b/c it has tended to cause people to
> overlook much more serious literature, a lot of which ASAers have written.
>
> Having said all of this, let's try to focus on what separates Phil and
many
> of his friends from many of us in the ASA. (I realize in saying this,
that
> quite a few ID people are in the ASA, please contextualize my statement.)
> The issue that separates us, is whether working scientists need the
concept
> of transcendental design in order to provide adequate scientific
> explanations for things in nature. Those of us who are not fully
persuaded
> by ID, believe that this is a metaphysical issue; as Christians, we affirm
> purpose in the universe and many of us believe there actually *is*
evidence
> for purpose that science finds. However, we recognize the enormity of
> dealing with this question, we see other metaphysical questions (the
problem
> of evil, for example, or the understanding of "soul", even the nature of
> nature) impinging on the conversation. So, we call this a metaphysical
> issue rather than a scientific one. Our friends on the other side call it
> scientific instead. I call it a difference of opinion.
>
> I've met literally hundreds of working scientists who are traditional
> Christians, who believe pretty much what Denyse believes about God,
Christ,
> salvation, and eternity. Nearly all of those folks, however, do not see a
> need for design hypotheses in their scientific work. They don't see how
it
> would matter to what they do, how it would alter the ways in which they
> explain natural phenomena. ID folks are bothered by this, they think that
> these scientists *ought* to contest materialism by doing science
differently
> than atheistic scientists--or at least, by doing tiny little bit of
science
> differently than atheistic scientists. Those who are not convinced by ID,
> however, are often among the most outspoken advocates for Christian
> discipleship in their own congregations. They believe we ought to *live*
> differently from atheistic scientists, but do not see how this directly
> affects their theory formation and seleciton.
>
> So, what's the real problem here? Have the non-ID folks just been
> brainwashed, so they can't see the issue properly? Or, have they learned
to
> bury their faith so that their careers can be advanced (the open or
implied
> statements about this one on the part of ID people are common)? (try
> telling this to Francis Collins, whose faith is not exactly buried under a
> bushel) Or, is it really just a difference of opinion, concerning what
> constitutes science and what constitutes metaphysics and religious belief?
> Or, does it reflect different understandings of Christian vocation in
> science--a confrontational, in-your-face type of theistic message vs a
> quieter, but openly presented, manner of living and doing? (this
particular
> contrast has only recently dawned on me, but I do think it is real and
> relevant to this issue)
>
> My apologies to Denyse and the list, for going on like this at such
length.
> She hit a hot button, however.
>
> ted
>
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 12 06:02:41 2004